People vs Buensuceso(Homicide and Murder) Facts: When Rodolfo Aguilar and Pariseo Tayag arrived in the Municipal Building, there were two persons there, namely, Enrique Mallo and Pat. Eduardo Mallari . Subsequently, a heated argument took place between Pat. Aguilar and Tayag arising from the latter's refusal to give his fan knife to the former. Thereafter Tayag hurriedly left the office. He was followed by Pat. Aguilar, Mallari and de la Cruz who walked fast, with Aguilar and Mallari holding guns. After having gone out of the building Aguilar fired his gun upward. When Tayag was near towards the wooden fence, Aguilar aimed his gun at Tayag and fired, hitting him above the right knee. Tayag continued to run towards his house. Mallari went to the waiting shed to intercept Tayag. Aguilar followed Mallari in the shed and they took opposite sides of the road, that is, Rizal Street, in front of the Catholic Church. Then there were several successive gun shots. After the commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of a jeep parked at the corner of Rizal and San Juan Streets, about 60 meters away from the municipal building. Issue: Whether or not they will be guilty of Murder? Held: Yes Ratio: The crime is Murder, qualified by treachery. The victim was already retreating backwards until he reached the fence of the town plaza when AGUILAR fired his revolver at the former hitting him above the right knee. Notwithstanding that he was already hit and wounded, and possibly immobilized, he was still subjected to successive shots as shown by the wounds that he had received, even at his back. Certainly, the means employed by the accused-appellants tended directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from any defense which the victim might have made. The killing of the victim was aggravated by abuse of superior strength as shown by the number of assailants, which circumstance, however, is absorbed by treachery. Raul Berana. it is but proper that a more stringent proof of relationship between the offender and the offended party must be established by the prosecution. Issue: Whether or Not the Relationship between the Accused – appellant and the complainant aggravates the crime ? Held: No Ratio: Considering that the relationship of accused-appellant to complainant qualifies the crime of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua to rape punishable by death.People vs Berana (Rape) Facts: On June 2. 1994 at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning. after which he mashed her breast and lay on top of her. "mama at papa" in his letters. Elena felt excruciating pain. Naga City when she was awakened by her brother-in-law. Complainant tried to cover her breasts with her arms but accused-appellant pushed her arms aside. The helpless girl was again threatened not to make any noise otherwise he would kill her. He began kissing her and made several push and pull movements. the victim felt something liquid in her organ. The relationship of accused-appellant and the complainant. herein accused-appellant. Accused-appellant sat down and warned her not to talk to anyone about the incident. 14-year old Maria Elena Jarcia was sleeping with her four-year old niece in one of the two rooms in a house her family was renting at Bayawas Street. otherwise she would be killed. . to the benefit of which the accused is entitled. Complainant recognized him because light was filtering in from a nearby window. As he inserted his organ into her womanhood. the evidence presented are not sufficient to dispel doubts about the true relationship of accused-appellant and the complainant. Corollarily. after which. Berana pointed a "buntot page" at her neck and warned her not to make any noise. Needless to say. her mother's testimony and the accused-appellant's use of the words. is not adequately substantiated since it is merely based on testimony of the complainant. The terrified girl was made to lie down while accused-appellant raised her duster and proceeded to remove her shorts and her underwear. a clearer proof of relationship between the complainant and the spouse of accused-appellant must be presented. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners of the stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance aswell as nuisance per se. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who." The third element being absent in the case at bar. Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is correct . either it be right or wrong. The petitioner was the mayor of a town and by the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. without authority of law.? Held: No Ratio: The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighborhood. shall by means of violence. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. as mayor of the town. he barricaded some establishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who were not complying with certain health and sanitation requirement.Timoner vs People (Grave Coercion) Facts: The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. . Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty. merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion. The owners of the stalls charged the petitioner with the offense of grave coercion. petitioner incurred no criminal liability. prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will. Petitioner. That controversy was set at rest in People vs. They were hogtied with nylon ropes. Sangayon untied the feet of Elena and brought her to a room and abused her. 122 SCRA 415). 120 SCRA 528 and People vs. a wrist watch and other things with a total value of P4. Their mouths were stuffed with pieces of cloth torn from the curtains. his companion entered the room and in turn abused Elena. Patola. The second robber brought Elena to the sala. the Cohado couple and their son William to an adjoining room and told them to lie down on the floor face down. February 5. 1983. After Sangayon was through.700 in cash. Cabural. (See People vs. L-35491. where it was held that robbery with qualified rape should be punished under article 294[2]. Sangayon and their two companions ransacked the store and took away P1. Issue: Whether or Not the accused should be punished under Rape with Homicide? Held: No Ratio: According to the Supreme Court. with a gun in his hand. February 4. 120 SCRA 546. Patola and Sangayon herded Mila. Patola. Mendez. approached Mila and told her not to shout if she did not want to die. 1983. L37235. Elena. Mila was untied by Patola and brought to another room where he ravished her. appliances. hogtied her again and covered her with a blanket.500. L34105. Then. 1983. May 27.People vs Patola (Roberry with Rape) While at the store where the victim were saleslady accused Sangayon closed the door of. Porcare. It should be stressed that in the case the . Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is qualified theft Held: Yes Ratio: Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code states that the crime of theft shall "be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively expressed in the next preceding article . . Catarining beamed his flashlight on the four persons who.. for lack of the necessary ten votes.." Thus. it is . If article 294[2]. Empelis vs IAC (Qualified Theft) Facts: On the early morning of June 10. a crime against chastity. 1979. a crime against property. At any rate.. The trial court applied in this case article 335. before it was amended. he saw four (4) persons within the premises of his plantation gathering and tying some coconuts. . is to be applied. When the coconuts are stolen in any other place. He then went home. but with robbery with rape. turned out to be the herein appellants. Upon reaching the coconut plantation with his companions. the death penalty cannot be imposed. if the property stolen .That is why it imposed the death penalty. consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. fetched his neighbors Anastacio Andales and Teodomero Garay and took along a flashlight... while Catarining stayed in his plantation to keep watch. It regarded article 294[2] as having been "amended" by article 335..accused were not charged with qualified rape alone. Elpidio Empelis and Emilio Carbungco were seen carrying coconuts on a piece of wood on their shoulders while Salvad and Mamerto Carbungco were espied carrying coconuts with their bare hands. the stealing of coconuts when they are still in the tree or deposited on the ground within the premises is qualified theft. the penalty is only reclusion perpetua. but merely to injure he reputation of the person defamed. vs Bustos (Libel) Facts: Examinees who failed the August 1987 physicians’ licensureexaminations filed a mandamus in the RTC of Manila against the Board of Medicine of the Professional Regulation Commission (herein respondents). and aired it in their Headline News. Gma Network inc. Stated differently. it would be simple theft only. In this case the report aired by petitioners was basically a narration of the contents of the petition for mandamus. (Side topic: . Petitioners (GMA and Vidal) secured a copy of the petition.simple theft. if the coconuts were taken in front of a house along the highway outside the coconut plantation. Issue: Whether or not the televised news report in question is libelous? Held: No Ratio: Liability for libel attaches when the following elements are present: (a) an allegation or imputation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another (b) publication of the imputation (c) identity of the person defamed (d) existence of malice. The examinees alleged that the Board committed manifest errors in the checking of answers. Malice is a term use to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. made a report. although not specified in Article 354 of Revised Penal Code). .petitioners’ report is also covered by qualified privilege communication.